Goodman v. Little, 19646

• Decision Date: 09 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. 19646,19646
• Citation: 97 S.E.2d 567,213 Ga. 178
• Parties: Bartis B. GOODMAN, Executor, v. Maye Hastey LITTLE et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 567

97 S.E.2d 567

213 Ga. 178

Bartis B. GOODMAN, Executor, v. Maye Hastey LITTLE et al.

No. 19646.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 9, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

The orders complained of are reviewable solely by the Court of Appeals, and the writ of error must be returned to that court.

J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Wyatt & Morgan, James R. Lewis, LaGrange, for defendant in error.

ALMAND, Justice.

The writ of error in this case was directed to the Court of Appeals, and, by order of that court, was transferred to this court on the ground that this court and not the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. The case as made by the record is one in which the heirs of Robert L. Hastey filed their petition in the Harris County Court of Ordinary against Bartis Goodman, executor of the Hastey estate, to show cause: (a) why his letters of executorship should not be revoked, or (b) why he should not be required to give bond with good security. On May 23, 1955, the ordinary passed an order requiring Goodman to immediately execute a surety bond in the sum of $20,000. The heirs entered an appeal to the Superior Court. On June 13, 1955, certain of the heirs of Hastey filed their petition in the Harris County Court of Ordinary to require Goodman as executor to make an accounting, and to show cause why he should not make a full settlement of the estate. By consent of the parties, this proceeding was appealed to the Superior Court, and the two appeal cases were consolidated and ordered to proceed under the name and style of the proceeding to remove the executor. On July 24, 1956, the appellants filed their petition in the appeal case pending in the Superior Court in which they alleged that the bond of $20,000 was insufficient to adequately protect the heirs from loss, in that the value of the estate that went into the executor's hands was $100,000, and due to the ill health of the executor, the petition for an accounting and removal of the executor could not be heard in the near future. They prayed that the executor be required to show cause why he should not give a bond for twice the value of the estate. The court issued a rule nisi and, on a hearing of the rule, the executor's motions to dismiss the petition and for a jury trial were overruled. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order requiring the executor to secure an additional surety bond in the sum of $80,000 within fifteen days, and, upon his failure to comply, his letters of executorship would be revoked. The executor having failed to give an additional bond, the court revoked the letters of executorship and ordered Goodman to make an accounting to the party or parties entitled thereto. Goodman filed his bill of exceptions in which error is assigned on these orders.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Ordinary to revoke the letters of executorship, Code, § 113-1229, 113-1101, and to require the executor to make an accounting and settlement to the heirs, Code, §§ 113-2201, 113-2202, is limited to the case as one at law. The Superior Court on the trial of an appeal from the Court of Ordinary has no broader powers than the Court of Ordinary itself had. Maloy v. Maloy, 134 Ga. 432, 68 S.E. 80; Ingraham v. Reynolds, 176 Ga. 772, 773, 168 S.E. 875; Griffin v. Securities Investment Co., 181 Ga. 455, 182 S.E. 594. The case on appeal from the Court of Ordinary brings the whole case up for a new hearing. Code, §§ 6-201, 6-501. I...